4.1 Article

At the Margins: Comparing School Experiences of Nonbinary and Binary-Identified Transgender Youth

Journal

JOURNAL OF SCHOOL HEALTH
Volume 90, Issue 5, Pages 358-367

Publisher

WILEY
DOI: 10.1111/josh.12882

Keywords

child and adolescent health; special populations; gender identity; transgender; sexual minority; LGBTQ youth

Funding

  1. NIH [K12HD055894]
  2. Baldwin Wisconsin Ideas Endowment
  3. UWICTR AHEAD program [NIHUL1TR000427]
  4. Wisconsin Partnership Program

Ask authors/readers for more resources

BACKGROUND Transgender, nonbinary, and gender nonconforming (TNG) young people are a diverse group, including young people with gender identities beyond the gender binary. Whereas nonbinary youth experience disparities in victimization and mental health, school belonging, support, and resources have not been well described. METHODS We conducted an online survey of TNG young people (ages 12-22) in Wisconsin to assess school belonging, safety, support, and resources. We compared responses among participants with nonbinary versus binary identities using mulvariate analysis of variance, multivariate analysis of covariance, chi-square and logistic regression analysis. RESULTS A total of 287 TNG young people met inclusion criteria (average age 18.2 +/- 2.5 years). More than 40% of participants identified as nonbinary. Nonbinary participants were less likely to be out to teachers, but more likely to utilize supportive staff as a resource compared to binary-identified TNG peers. There were no significant differences in school safety and belonging. CONCLUSIONS Most school experiences do not vary significantly between TNG young people with binary versus nonbinary gender identities, though nonbinary young people are less likely to be out at school. Future research should examine factors that impact whether nonbinary young people share their gender identity and access school support services.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.1
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available